Paul Rubin wrote: > "Paul Boddie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Whether this solves the questioner's problems remains to be seen, but > > issues of handling SSH-based communications streams do seem to be > > addressed. > > Actually I don't understand the need for SSH. This is traffic over a > LAN, right? Is all of the LAN traffic encrypted? That's unusual; SSH > is normally used to secure connections over the internet, but the > local network is usually trusted. Hopefully it's not wireless.
I don't run any wireless networks, but given the apparently poor state of wireless network security (as far as the actual implemented standards in commercially available products are concerned), I'd want to be using as much encryption as possible if I did. Anyway, the py.execnet thing is presumably designed to work over the Internet and over local networks, with the benefit of SSH being that it applies well to both domains. Whether it's a better solution for the questioner's problem than established alternatives such as PVM (which I've never had the need to look into, even though it seems interesting), various distributed schedulers or anything else out there, I can't really say. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
